The CRTC's 2004 incentive scheme for Canadian English-language television drama: a triumph of rhetoric over reason in policy implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission's ("CRTC") 2004 incentive program to increase the production of, the viewing to, and the expenditures on, high quality, original, English-language Canadian drama programming on Canadian private television. After exploring the economic, structural, technological and legal factors that militate against the success of English-language Canadian drama, this paper explores the history of regulatory measures implemented to support Canadian television drama and the legislated policy imperatives which have been relied upon to sustain them. The CRTC's 2004 incentive scheme is then described and critiqued, ultimately revealing that the program's practical shortcomings and its weak policy justifications will likely serve to undermine its success in achieving its stated goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".